Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
Post on 09-Apr-2018
220 Views
Preview:
Transcript
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
1/13
Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat A Nevada Landowners Guide
A Northwest Nevada Sage Grouse Working Group publication
INTRODUCTION
The Nevada Wildlife Federation formed the Northwest Nevada Sage Grouse Working Group to address factors that have
led to declines in sage grouse numbers in northwestern Nevada.
The purpose of this booklet is to inform Nevada landowners about the habitat needs of sage grouse. This booklet was
completed by members of the Northwest Nevada Sage Grouse Working Group under the guidance of wildlife biologist
and University of Nevada, Reno Professor Emeritus Donald A. Klebenow.
Sage grouse have experienced severe population declines. What can you do as a Nevadan? We ask that you acquaint
yourself with the conditions that sage grouse prefer within the sagebrush ecosystem. Then, when the opportunity presents
itself, you may be able to implement some practices that will enhance habitat for these birds.
Sage grouse are a sagebrush obligate and a species that is said to characterize sagebrush landscapes. If we conserve sage
grouse, other species that prefer or require habitat similar to that outlined in this booklet will also benefit.
Gale Dupree
Chairman, Northwest Nevada Sage Grouse Working Group
STATUS
North America
Throughout time, sagebrush vegetation types and sage grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus) distributions have varied
significantly as climatic patterns shifted. It is estimated that about the time Western lands were being occupied by white
Americans, approximately 220 million acres of sagebrush existed in North America, one of the most widespread habitats
in the country. At that time, the distribution of sage grouse paralleled that of sagebrush. However, a portion of that
sagebrush type would have been occupied by successional plant communities due to fires, effects of prolonged drought,
localized flooding, disease outbreaks and other cyclic disturbances. An unknown portion of that 220 million acres would
not have provided ideal sage grouse habitat. Those lands did not support sufficient sagebrush cover on the site following a
disturbance, or sagebrush canopy was excessive because the interval between disturbance cycles was too long.
Given that natural fluctuations in both vegetation communities and sage grouse populations occur, a great proportion of
the sagebrush vegetation type has been eliminated over the past 150 years, converted for agriculture, mining,
urbanization, or changed for other purposes. In addition, the sagebrush type habitat has been altered by wildfires followed
by weed invasions, exotic grass seedings, fire suppression that has led to successional progression and grazing practices,
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
2/13
particularly unregulated grazing prior to enaction of the Taylor Grazing Act. Intensive predator control on grazed lands
has also taken place.
As these practices changed the sagebrush ecosystem, sage grouse populations have fluctuated, both increasing and
declining over the years. The recent low numbers are causing particular concern. In the past 20 years, population decline
is estimated at 45 percent to 80 percent with between 150,000 to 200,000 breeding sage grouse left throughout its entire
range (Connelly and Braun 1997).
Sage grouse now range from southeastern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan; western North and South Dakota to the
east; Colorado, Utah and Nevada to the south; and eastern California, eastern Oregon and eastern Washington to the
west. Core sage grouse populations have shrunk to land in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Wyoming.
Even within these remaining core range areas, populations have dramatically declined. Sage grouse have disappeared in
British Columbia, Nebraska, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Populations remaining in Alberta, North Dakota,
Saskatchewan, South Dakota, California, Colorado, Utah and Washington are greatly reduced and can be considered
marginal.
Nevada
Historic abundance of sage grouse is difficult to determine due to limited long-term data on population size and trends
and the circumstantial nature of much of the existing evidence. For example, the presence of sage grouse was recorded in
archaeological excavations of an Indian cave and a shelter in northwestern Nevada and another cave in Utah near
Wendover, Nev., (Grayson 1988). Sage grouse remains were found in deposits as old as 10,000 to 11,000 years. At the
Utah site, local extinction of sage grouse and other species apparently coincided with the retreat of Lake Bonneville, only
to reappear in the more recent strata.
In 1867 and 1868, the ornithologist, R. Ridgeway (1877), surveyed birds across central Nevada. He listed sage grouse as
birds characteristic of sagebrush and in his conclusions, ... we saw it so seldom that little was learned of its habits,
particularly during the breeding season. It came under our notice only late in summer and during the autumn, when it
was found to be abundant in certain localities, but by no means uniformly distributed. Little other scientific evidence
from the 1800s exists from which sage grouse abundance can be judged.
A review of historic information in personal journals, newspapers and publications by Robert McQuivey, retired Nevada
Division of Wildlife biologist of Reno, Nev., found few references of abundant sage grouse during exploration and
emigration in the 1840s and 1850s or early settlement following 1860. More common was recording of game scarcity.
Local abundance was sometimes recorded, however, paralleling the conclusion made by Ridgeway (1877).
Since about 1860, settlement led to changes in plant communities that favored increased sage grouse populations. Some
populations grew during the 1870s with increased reports of birds harvested by hunters. During the 1880s, sage grouse
numbers probably reached their highest peak and then declined. During that era, market hunting also peaked.
Hunting laws began around 1890 with liberal seasons and bags. As time passed and bird populations decreased, there
were reductions of hunting seasons length and bag limits beginning around 1900, continuing until the late 1920s. More
recently, sage grouse numbers peaked in the 1950s followed by a general and continued decline in numbers.
Implementation of government sponsored predator control coincided with the development of ranches, livestock grazing
on public lands and hunting. The control programs included large efforts to eliminate predators of domestic cattle and
sheep using shooting, trapping and poisoned baits. The result was a reduction of coyotes and other sage grouse predatorssuch as golden eagles. Poisoned baits increased the vulnerability of scavengers like ravens, a sage grouse egg predator.
In the late 1940s an efficient poison, 1080, was added to the poison bait selection, primarily for mammal control.
Predator control using poisons ceased when banned by government edict in l972. How predator control programs
influenced sage grouse numbers is open to speculation, because it is not supported by scientific study.
Currently, sage grouse are distributed from central Nevada (i.e., about Tonopah) northward. The largest populations
occur from the northwestern corner of the state across the northern part with the northeastern counties having the most
continuous habitat. Western Nevadas Douglas, Lyon and Mineral counties and adjoining Mono and Inyo counties in
California contain a population of sage grouse that is genetically distinct from any birds within the sage grouse
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
3/13
distribution. Nevada still has many sage grouse, but the statewide population has declined. Many local or regional
populations have had a 40 percent to 80 percent decline with a mean of about 50 percent (Nevada Division of Wildlife,
personal communication).
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
While widespread acreages of sagebrush still occur, the sage grouse is a bird that occurs in low densities within the
overall habitat. They are locally abundant seasonally. Their seasonal and annual movements tend to be widespread andare often unpredictable. They are referred to as landscape species, due to their annual use of broad areas of
nonhomogenous sagebrush-grassland habitat types. They only thrive where sagebrush is found.
In general, suitable sagebrush/grassland habitat has plant communities dominated by a canopy of either dwarf sagebrush,
most commonly low sagebrush (A. arbuscula), or big sagebrush (A. tridentata) and a diverse understory of
bunchgrasses and forbs (flowering herbaceous plants) (Peterson 1970, Wallestad 1971, Eng and Schladeweiler 1972).
The absolute and relative amounts of sagebrush, grasses and forbs on a specific site varies with the subspecies of
sagebrush, the ecological site potential and condition of the habitat. Sagebrush sites best for sage grouse have shrub
canopy cover between 15 percent and 25 percent. Beyond those values, as shrub cover increases, the preferences
displayed by grouse decline. Sagebrush cover values may reach 30 percent to 40 percent or more with declines in
herbaceous production and no recruitment of herbaceous seedlings. In the case of Wyoming big sagebrush (A. t.
wyomingensis), understory production begins to decrease when sagebrush cover is between 12 percent and 15 percent
depending on specific site features. The continued increase in brush cover eventually leads to the elimination of
understory plants (Winward 1991).
Sagebrush habitats are critical for sage grouse yearlong. Grouse depend on sagebrush exclusively during the winter.
Sagebrush/perennial grasslands also provide critical breeding and nesting habitats for sage grouse. Meadows, riparian
areas, irrigated hay fields and other moist areas within or adjacent to sagebrush habitat provide summer foraging areas.
These mesic sites are critical for sage grouse broods during dry years and remain important during years with above
average rainfall.
Sage grouse seasonal movements often cover large distances in scattered directions across the landscape. The spatial
arrangement, the amount and the vegetative condition of each seasonal habitat determine the landscapes potential for
sage grouse. Both the quantity and quality of the sagebrush environment determines habitat suitability. In a large area of
dense sagebrush that is declining in habitat quality, the creation of a mosaic of successional stages would counter the
By John KallestedIn early spring, male sage grouse gather on open areas (leks), where theystrut to attract females.
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
4/13
loss of understory grasses and forbs across the landscape. Significant reduction in the native grass and forb understory
will eventually reduce the quality of sage grouse habitat.
Sage grouse populations decline when sagebrush/grassland habitat is altered or fragmented by large-scale brush control,
the establishment of large monocultures of grasses, converting rangeland to cropland or the conversion of rangelands
dominated by perennial plant species to rangelands dominated by invading annual grass species (e.g. cheatgrass,Bromus
tectorum). Fires; pinon and juniper invasion; developments such as power lines, fences, roads and urbanization; and
improper livestock management practices can also result in small grouse populations. Fire suppression that has permittednatural changes in plant community composition and structure also has created problems. Vast, old stands of sagebrush
may lack the herbaceous grasses and forbs grouse need for cover and food.
EARLY SPRING HABITAT
Leks
Strutting grounds (leks) are the focal point of breeding during late March and April. Leks often are situated on low
sagebrush sites, broad ridgetops, grassy openings, disturbed sites (such as burns) and dry lakebeds. The bird select leks
with one common feature spots with less herbaceous and shrub cover than surrounding areas. Because lek sites are
sparsely vegetated, they are sometimes associated with altered habitats such as cultivated fields, airstrips, gravel pits and
roads. No evidence shows that lek habitat is limiting sage grouse (Schroeder, et al. 1999).
Stands of sagebrush surrounding leks are used extensively by sage grouse. Males use the habitat surrounding a lek for
foraging, loafing and shelter. They are found in shrub stands 7 to 15 inches high (Rothenmeier 1979, Call and Maser
1985) with canopy coverage of 20 percent to 50 percent (Wallestad and Schladweiler 1974, Autenrieth 1981, Ellis, et al.
1989).
If all of the components of their habitat are available within one area, grouse may not migrate. The lek may be an
approximate center of their annual range (Eng and Schladweiler 1972, Wallestad and Pyrah 1974, Wallestad and
Schladweiler 1974). This is not the case for migratory populations (Connelly, et al. 1988, Wakkinen et al. 1992). Some
populations have seasonal movements through widely distributed habitats, even a 50- to 80-mile migration cycle. The
location of the lek is no indication of overall habitat requirements. At times, these grouse may pass what is considered
excellent habitat to use what appears to be less desirable.
Pre-laying hen nutrition
By Donald KlebenowLow sagebrush provides important early spring habitat wherehens find food (forbs) for their newly hatched chicks.
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
5/13
Good plant composition in early spring habitat is one of several factors that affect nesting success. Forbs are more
nutritious than sagebrush. The availability of forbs to pre-laying hens in March and April affect the hens nutrition,
which influences nesting success (Crawford 2001). Without protein, calcium and phosphorus provided by forbs, declines
occur in nest initiation rate, clutch size, successful hatch and chick survival immediately following the hatch (Barnett
and Crawford 1994, Coggins 1998).
On low sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush sites in southeastern Oregon, important forb species consumed by sagegrouse hens were: desert-parsley (Lomatium spp.), hawksbeard (Crepis spp.), long-leafphlox (Phlox longifolia),
mountain-dandelion (Agoseris spp.), clover (Trifolium spp.), everlasting (Antennaria spp), and Purshs milk-vetch
(Astragalus purshii). In that study, a decline in the availability of forbs was associated with a decline in sage grouse
chicks per hen and average brood size the second year (Barnett and Crawford 1994).
A combination of low sagebrush and big sagebrush sites in good health provides the habitat to insure forbs are available
to sage grouse. Low sagebrush sites are generally richer in forbs and most attractive to pre-laying hens (Barnett and
Crawford 1994).
LATE SPRING HABITAT
Nesting sites
After mating, sage grouse hens leave the lek to nest. Hens nest at the general elevation of the lek and often in the
vicinities of leks. Average distances between nests and nearest leks vary from approximately 2/3 to 4 miles, but hens may
nest in the immediate vicinity of the lek or as far as 12 miles away (Wakkinen, et al. 1992, Fischer, 1994, Hanf et al.
1994). Research shows that lek location does not necessarily identify the location of nesting habitat (Bradbury et al
1989, Wakkinen et al. 1992).
Most nests are under shrubs, mainly sagebrush. Adequate brush cover is critical for successful nesting. Shrub cover can
be either too little, or too much. In an Idaho study where average shrub cover was 13 percent, nests were located where
cover averaged 17 percent (Klebenow 1969). No grouse nested in areas with less than 10 percent total shrub cover.
Where sagebrush cover was as high as 50 percent, sage grouse nested in more open areas with 25 percent cover.
Numerous studies have concluded that optimum nesting habitat has a 15 percent to 25 percent canopy cover of shrubs
(Connelly et al. 1991, Gregg et al. 1994, Sveum 1995).
Both sagebrush and perennial grasses are important habitat components at nest sites (Connelly et al. 1991, Gregg et al.
By Donald Klebenow
Forbs, such as this mountain dandelion, provide early foodnutrition for chicks.
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
6/13
1994, Sveum 1995). Fewer losses to predators occur when nests are located under sagebrush, where there is residual
grass cover, and where shrub cover at immediate nest sites is greater than surrounding shrub cover (Gregg 1991,
Wallestad and Pyrah 1974). In eastern Oregon, both natural nests and artificial sage grouse nests were least preyed upon
when located where shrubs were medium height (16 to 32 inches), with cover of residual grasses 7 inches or more
(Gregg et al. 1994, DeLong et al. 1995).
Non-nesting habitat
Hens not nesting and males gather in flocks during the nesting season. They may feed in relatively open areas such aslow sagebrush sites, burned areas or other locations where forbs are abundant. They roost in adjacent sagebrush
(Klebenow 1972). In Nevada and southeastern Oregon, these flocks consistently used mosaics of low sagebrush and big
sagebrush or stands of Wyoming big sagebrush (Savage 1969, Gregg et
al. 1993). In May on southeastern Idahos Snake River Plains, groups of non-nesting birds were found just above the
upper elevations favored by nesting grouse. In late May, they disappeared, migrating to higher elevations and their
summering areas (Klebenow 1985).
EARLY BROOD REARING HABITAT
June to July
Broods are tied to food and cover. Insects and forbs are important during a broods first month of life when chicks require
a diet high in protein. Abundant forbs and insects characterize high-quality brood habitat (Dunn and Braun 1986, Klott
and Lindzey 1990, Drut et al. 1994, Apa 1998). In southeastern Oregon on an area with low grouse productivity, these
food sources were less abundant and sagebrush became a major part of the chicks diet (Drut et al. 1994).
Forb species selected during this period include hawksbeard, milkvetch, common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale),
mountain dandelion, microsteris (Microsteris gracilis), broomrape (Orobanche spp.), clover,salsify (Tragopogon spp.),
western yarrow (Achillea millifolium), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), sego lily (Calchortus spp.) (Calchortus spp.)
and others (Klebenow and Gray 1968, Savage 1969, Peterson 1970, Drut et al. 1994).
The major insects in a chicks diet are June beetles (Fam. Scarabeidae), darkling beetles (Fam. Tenebrionidae) and ants
(Fam. Formicidae) (Klebenow and Gray 1968, Drut et al. 1994).
Brood-rearing habitat may be relatively open, with about 14 percent canopy cover of sagebrush (Wallestad 1971).
Grouse will forage in areas where big sagebrush provides only 10 percent cover. They are nearly always found where
By Donald KlebenowWet meadows provide food and wate for hens and chicksduring the summer.
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
7/13
shrub cover is less than 30 percent (Klebenow 1969, 1985)
Habitats for brood-rearing often contain a mosaic of low sagebrush and big sagebrush sites. Their co-occurrence
provides an optimum combination of food and cover. In Nevada, areas that provide an abundance of forbs are generally
low sagebrush sites, or other sites occupied by dwarf sagebrush species. The edge between big and low sagebrush is
important because sage grouse broods are seldom found far from big sagebrush cover, presumably because it provides
better hiding cover.
LATE BROOD REARING HABITAT
July through August
As food plants mature and dry, grouse move to areas that support succulent vegetation (Eng 1952, Rogers 1964). These
may be lower-elevation native or irrigated meadows located in a matrix of uplands without green herbaceous vegetation.
Succulent plants can also be found at higher elevation sites typically in moist grassy areas or upland meadows
(Klebenow 1969, Gill 1965, Savage 1969, Oakleaf 1971, Wallestad 1971). Delays in maturing forbs have a noticeable
effect on bird movements. Where habitat that is in good condition in above normal precipitation years, grouse may find
succulent forbs on dryer upland sites all summer (Savage 1969). This is not the usual situation, however.
Upland sage grouse habitat in Nevada typically is more arid than upland habitat in most Western states. This results in
meadows being an important part of the late summer brood habitat. From mid to late summer, stringer meadows in
drainages, meadows associated with springs and streams, and irrigated hay fields provide the highest abundance of forbs
for juvenile birds. The drier the summer, the more the birds are attracted to the relatively few green areas (Klebenow
1985).
These green areas support cattle as well as sage grouse. Their dual use of the same meadows does not necessarily
conflict. Research has shown that grouse select grazed meadows over ungrazed meadows (Neel 1980, Evans 1985,
Klebenow 1985). Early in the summer, grouse use both grazed and ungrazed meadows and are found where the height of
grasses and forbs is less than average. On a northwestern Nevada study, the birds were found where vegetation height
ranged from 3 to 6 inches, whereas surrounding vegetation ranged from 4 to 10 inches tall. Grouse selection for shorter
vegetation disappears as the summer progresses on a grazed meadow if all plants are grazed closely to the ground. For
safety on closely grazed meadows, grouse must rely on cover provided by sagebrush on the meadow edge. Given a
choice, the grouse appear to select areas where grasses and forbs are approximately 4 inches tall (Klebenow 1985). This
height provides them adequate hiding cover as they will press to the ground to avoid detection.
An optimum meadow for grouse would be one that is grazed in a fashion that enables sage grouse to select the cover
height they prefer. When grazed to an average of 4 inches, there will be portions of the meadow grazed more closely and
areas with taller vegetation, a mosaic grouse find most suitable for foraging and hiding. With such cover, sage grouse
broods may be observed a considerable distance from the edge of meadows or hay fields.
In addition to reducing vegetation height, grazing improves the quality of the food plants eaten by sage grouse. When
birds first appear on meadows (usually mid-July in northwestern Nevada), both grazed and ungrazed areas are attractive
to the birds. The main attraction at that time is the availability of forbs, of which common dandelion is a valuable
species. By mid-August, food plants on the grazed meadows remain succulent and green. Vegetation on ungrazed
meadows typically has cured. Regrowth of grazed food plants contains more moisture and more nutrients than ungrazedplants, and this regrowth is sought by grouse (Evans 1985).
Ideally, the spring and summer habitats used for nesting and brood-rearing should be in close proximity since much of
the travel from early brood-rearing to late brood-rearing habitats is on foot. A mosaic of sagebrush sites interspersed
with meadows is the desired combination.
FALL HABITAT
Sage grouse form flocks as brood groups break up in early fall. Both desiccation and frost result in the drying or killing
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
8/13
of forbs in the meadows. The consumption of sagebrush increases, and it continues to be the major food item throughoutthe winter (Rasmussen and Griner 1938, Patterson 1952, Leach and Hensley 1954, Gill 1965 Wallestad et al. 1975).
Fall movements to winter ranges are slow and meandering and occur from late August to December.
WINTER HABITAT
During winter, sage grouse feed almost exclusively on sagebrush leaves. Winter habitat has sagebrush stems and leaves
that protrude above the snow. Movements to wintering areas vary widely, ranging from a few miles to more than 50
miles, depending on the area. Hens have been observed in Montana moving to wintering areas before heavy snowfall,
which indicated fidelity for specific winter areas (Berry and Eng 1985). Throughout the range of sage grouse, dependent
upon location and availability, virtually all species of sagebrush are consumed. At any given locality, wintering habitat
needs to be identified and managed because loss of sagebrush on winter ranges can lead to the loss of a sage grouse
population.
In northeastern Nevada, low sagebrush is the preferred forage in fall and early winter. Since this species is often covered
by snow for extensive periods in mid- to late-winter, sage grouse switch to Wyoming big sagebrush (Back no date).
Winter habitat varies with climatic conditions. Sage grouse will roost in open, low sagebrush sites on clear, calm nights
if the temperatures remain above approximately 10 degrees Fahrenheit. On windy nights or during snowstorms, sage
grouse seek out taller shrubs with greater canopy cover (more than 20 percent). When night temperatures drop below 10
degrees and deep powdery snow is available, sage grouse will snow burrow to conserve energy (Back et al. 1987). Sage
grouse will fly considerable distances (more than 5 miles) and elevations (more than 1,000 feet) between winter feeding
sites and suitable snow roosting sites when temperatures drop below 10 degrees (Back, no date).
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Take a close look at sage grouse habitat in your area. Are sage grouse populations optimum for the habitat? If the habitat
is not in good condition or sage grouse populations are low, determine what is missing. Have birds on leks decreased or
disappeared? If so, is the reason apparent? Is the sagebrush canopy cover too dense, too low or too tall? Is the ground
cover under the sagebrush depleted or missing? Is residual perennial grass missing or too low for nesting? Are insects
and forbs available for broods? Are the meadows providing suitable food, cover and water for birds in the summer? Do
wintering areas contain the varieties, densities and heights of sagebrush the birds prefer?
By Gary BackThis meandering stream and meadows mixed with sage-brush provide a diversity of good sage grouse habitat.
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
9/13
If your sage grouse habitat needs improvement, the following practices are recommended (Adapted from Beck andMitchell, 2000):
1. Complete sagebrush eradication treatments over large areas should not be practiced, particularly on a large scale.
However, thinning sagebrush to enhance forb and grass production while maintaining about 15 percent shrub cover
could enhance grouse habitat. Small burns conducted in a mosaic to enhance forbs and create age-class diversity of
mountain big sagebrush (A. t. vaseyana) will provide benefits. Use caution with prescribed burning in Wyoming big
sagebrush there may be potential for invasion of annual grasses, and shrub recovery on these dry sites is extremely
slow. Plan prescribed fires carefully as removal of large expanses of sagebrush is detrimental to grouse. The proper
pattern of interspersion and ideal size of burn sites for enhancement of chick foods remains unknown. Complete removal
of sagebrush from patches in a large matrix of sagebrush is not considered sagebrush eradication and may be the
prescription for enhancing sites with declining sage grouse habitat.
2. Rehabilitation following disturbances such as wildfires should consist of immediate reestablishment of mixes of
sagebrush and native grasses and forbs. A major aim is to prevent establishment of annual grasses. Protect seeded areas
from grazing until seeded species are established.
3. In low rainfall zones where wildfire in Wyoming big sagebrush leads to the establishment of cheatgrass or other
introduced annuals, the competitive ability of exotic annuals prevents the ready rehabilitation of native species of
grasses, forbs and shrubs. It may be necessary to seed a perennial species of grass capable of competing with the annual
species in order to occupy the site. Once this perennial species is established, the site may be interseeded with native
species, particularly the forbs and shrubs sage grouse require.
4. Range seedings should focus on establishing forbs and subspecies of sagebrush suited to various range sites. Native
grasses that do not out-compete beneficial forbs and shrubs should be used in the seed mixtures. Monoculture seedings
designed strictly to increase grass production are discouraged. Use plant species adapted to the sites soil type, elevation
and amount of precipitation. Consider sage grouse food habits when selecting forb species, with special consideration of
the species with milky juice found in the Compositae family.
5. During insect outbreaks, consider sage grouse presence before spraying insecticides. Insects are essential for survival
and normal development of chicks up to 3 weeks of age. Furthermore, sage grouse die-offs have been documented when
exposed to organophosphorus insecticides applied to cultivated crops in areas occupied by sage grouse.
6. Livestock use around water sources and wet meadows in brood-rearing areas should be regulated through fencing or
herding management to restrict overuse, thereby protecting vulnerable forbs and grasses. Light or moderate livestock
By Gary BackSagebrush leaves constitute the entire diet for sage grouse inwinter. The birds must find sagebrush above the snow forsubsistance.
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
10/13
grazing inside meadow exclosures during the summer enhances the food quality for grouse. Initiate a program of
reestablishment where meadows have been depleted. Restoration of watershed quality and replacement of basin big
sagebrush (A. t. tridentata) with meadow vegetation should be the goal.
7. Manage for a variety of sagebrush cover depending on how the area is used by sage grouse: 15 percent to 30 percent
sagebrush canopy cover for nesting, 5 percent to 15 percent cover in summer habitat or 20 percent to 35 percent in
winter.
8. Manage livestock grazing to insure that residual grasses remain for nest concealment, and optimum growth of forbs,
grasses and sagebrush. The grazing system, grazing duration, kind of animals, and stocking intensity should be adjusted
to maximize the vegetative goals.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
To obtain more information on restoration of sage grouse habitat, contact:
Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc.
Nevada Division of Wildlife
Nevada Farm Bureau
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Forest Service
University of Nevada, Reno, Cooperative Extension Service
The Web version of this paper was last revised in April 2002. This paper was first published by the Nevada Wildlife
Federation in October 2001. A paper copy of this booklet was printing January 2002. The paper copies are available by
calling (775) 677-0927 or (775) 885-0405 or writing Nevada Wildlife Federation, P.O. Box 71237, Reno, NV 89570.
WORKS CITED
Apa, A.D. 1998. Habitat use and movements of sympatric sage and Colombian sharp-tailed grouse in southeastern
Idaho. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow.
Authenrieth, R.E. 1981. Sage grouse management in Idaho. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Wildlife Bulletin. 9.
Back, G.N. Unpublished data. University of Nevada, Reno, Saval Project. Sage Grouse Winter Movements and Habitat
Selection.
Back, G.N., M.R. Barrington and J.K. McAdoo. 1987. Sage grouse use of snow burrows in northeastern Nevada.
Wilson Bulletin. 99:488-490.
Barnett, J.F., and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Pre-laying nutrition of sage grouse hens in Oregon. Journal of Range
Management. 47:114-118.
Beck, J.L., and D.L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin
2000, 28(4):993-1002.
Berry, J.D., and R.L. Eng. 1985. Interseasonal movements and fidelity to seasonal use areas by female sage grouse.
Journal of Wildlife Management 49:237-240.
Bradbury, J.W., R.M. Gibson, C.E. McCarthy and S.L. Vehrencamp. 1989. Dispersion of displaying male sage grouse.
Part II. The role of female dispersion. Behavioral. Ecological. Sociobiology 24:15-24.
Call, M.W., and C. Maser. 1985. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands, the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: Sage
grouse. U.S. Dept. Agriculture., Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
11/13
PNW-187.
Coggins, K.A. 1998. Sage grouse habitat use during the breeding season on Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge.
M.Sc. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Connelly, J.W., H.W. Browers and R.J. Gates. 1988 Seasonal movements of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Journal
of Wildlife Management 52:116-122.
Connelly, J.W., W.L. Wakkinen, A.D. Apa, and K.P. Reese. 1991. Sage grouse use of nest sites in southeastern Idaho.
Journal of Wildlife Management 55:521-524.
Connelly, J.W., and C.E. Braun. 1997. Long-term changes in sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus populations in
western North America. Wildlife Biology 3/4:123-128.
Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and
their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.
Crawford, M.S. 2001. Implications of herbaceous cover on sage grouse productivity. Abstract: The Wildlife Society
Eighth Annual Conference: 109-110.
DeLong, A.K., J.A. Crawford and D.C. DeLong, Jr. 1995. Relationships between vegetational structure and predation of
artificial sage grouse nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:88-92.
Drut, M.S., W.H. Pyle and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Diets and food selection of sage grouse chicks in Oregon. Journal of
Range Management 47:90-93.
Dunn, P.O., and C.E. Braun. 1986. Summer habitat use by adult female and juvenile sage grouse. Journal of Wildlife
Management 50:228-235.
Ellis, K.L., J.R. Parrish, J.R. Murphy and G.H. Richins. 1989. Habitat use by breeding male sage grouse: A manage-
ment approach. Great Basin Naturalist 49:404-407.
Eng, R.L. 1952. Population trends and breeding potential studies (Sage grouse brood studies). Montana Fish and Game
Commission, Wildlife Restoration Division, Quarterly Progress Report 3:56-62.
Eng, R.L., and P. Schladeweiler. 1972. Sage grouse winter movements and habitat use in central Montana. Journal of
Wildlife Management 36:141-146.
Evans, C. 1985. The relationship of cattle grazing to sage grouse use of meadow habitat on the Sheldon National
Wildlife Refuge. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno.
Fisher, R.A. 1994. The effects of prescribed fire on the ecology of migratory sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow.
Gill, R.B. 1965. Effects of sagebrush control on distribution and abundance of sage grouse. Colorado Game, Fish andParks Dept. Federal Aid Job Completion Report, Project W-37-R-17, Job No. 8, Fort Collins, Colo.
Grayson, D.K. 1988. Danger Cave, Last Supper Cave and Hanging Rock Shelter: the faunas. Anthropological Papers of
the American Museum of Natural History 66, part 1:1-130.
Gregg, M.A. 1991. Habitat use and selection of nesting habitat by sage grouse in Oregon. M.Sc. Thesis, Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Gregg, M.A., J.A. Crawford and M.S. Drut 1993. Summer habitat use and selection by female sage grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 53:293-298.
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
12/13
Gregg, M.A., J.A. Crawford, M.S. Drut and A.K. DeLong. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests
in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:162-166.
Hanf, J.M., P.A. Schmidt and E.B Groshens. 1994. Sage grouse in the high desert of central Oregon: Results of a study,
1988-1993. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Ore.
Klebenow, D.A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 33:649-661.
Klebenow, D.A. 1972. The habitat requirements of sage grouse and the role of fire in management. Tall Timbers Fire
Ecology. Conference 12:305-315.
Klebenow, D.A. 1985. Habitat management for sage grouse in Nevada. World Pheasant Association Journal X:34-46.
Klebenow, D.A., and G. M. Gray. 1968. Food habits of juvenile sage grouse. Journal of Range Management 21:80-83.
Klott, J.H., and F.G. Lindzey. 1990. Brood habitats of sympatric sage grouse and Colombian sharp-tailed grouse in
Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:84-88.
Leach, H.R., and A..L. Hensley. 1954. The sage grouse in California with special reference to food habits. California
Fish and Game 40:385-394.
Neel, L.A. 1980. Sage grouse response to grazing management in Nevada. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno.
Oakleaf, R.J. 1971. The relationship of sage grouse to upland meadows in Nevada. Nevada Dept. Fish and Game Final
Report, Project W-48-2, Jobs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3. Reno, Nev.
Patterson, R.O. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books Inc., Denver, Colo.
Peterson, J.G. 1970 The food habits and summer distribution of juvenile sage grouse in central Montana. Journal of
Wildlife Management 34:147-155.
Rasmussen, D.I., and L.A. Griner. 1938. Life history and management studies of the sage grouse in Utah, with special
reference to nesting and feeding habits. Transaction North American Wildlife Conference 3:852-864.
Ridgeway, R. 1877. Ornithology. Pp. 303-669 in C. King. Ornithology and paleontology. U.S. Geological Exploration
40th Parallel, Vol. 4, Part III.
Rogers, G.E. 1964. Sage grouse investigations in Colorado. Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Dept. Technical Publication
16. Ft. Collins, Colo.
Rothenmeier, D. 1979. Sage grouse reproductive ecology: breeding season movements, strutting ground attendance and
site characteristics, and nesting. MSc. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo.
Savage, D.E. 1969. Relation of sage grouse to upland meadows in Nevada. Nevada Fish and Game Commission JobCompletion Report Project W-39-R-9, Job 12. Nevada Div. of Wildlife, Reno, Nev.
Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in The Birds of North
America No. 425. (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia.
Sveum, C.M. 1995. Habitat selection by sage grouse hens during the breeding season in south-central Washington.
M.Sc. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Wakkinen, W.L., K.P. Reese and J.W. Connelly. 1992. Sage grouse nest location in relation to leks. Journal of Wildlife
8/8/2019 Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat: A Nevada Landowner's Guide
13/13
Management 56:381-383.
Wallestad, R.O. 1971. Summer movements and habitat use by sage grouse broods in central Montana. Journal of
Wildlife Management 35:129-136.
Wallestad, R.O., and D. Pyrah. 1974. Movement and nesting of sage grouse hens in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife
Management 38:630-633.
Wallestad, R.O. and P. Schladweiler. 1974. Breeding season movements and habitat selection of male sage grouse.
Journal of Wildlife Management 38:634-637.
Wallestad, R.O., J.G. Petersen and R.L. Eng. 1975. Foods of adult sage grouse in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife
Management 39:628-630.
Winward, A.H. 1991. A renewed commitment to management of sagebrush grasslands. Pp. 2-7 in Management in the
sagebrush steppe. Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report 880. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Funding for this guide was made possible through the generous donations of the Daily Sparks Tribune, Nevada
Section, Society for Range Management; Nevada Wildlife Federation; Northeast Nevada Stewardship Group;
Patagonia; The Wildlife Society and Quail Unlimited.
top related